<p>I assume that you are speaking about General Shinseki. Anyone else? Note that the Joint Chiefs serve 4-year terms and Shinseki’s term expired in 2003 when he retired; he was not “fired”. I will agree that his views were criticized, but he’s a big boy - he should be able to take some criticism when you get to be that rank. But, the fact that he was able to air his views sort of flies in the face of your argument that “there were nothing but yes-men around.” </p>
<p>Also note that his disagreement was about tactics, not the overall policy of the taking down Saddam. He may indeed have been correct concerning the correct tactics for the war. However, note that he was overruled by the other generals in the military. I imagine that you could find a general who disagreed with Ike’s plan for the European front as well - perhaps critical of our use of Sherman tanks that lit up like cigaret lighters when hit by Panzers (the Germans referred to the Sherman tanks as Ronsons because of this). It would be hard to find a civilian or military leader who is 100% correct about all things.</p>
<p>Since you apparently weren’t present for the discussion, how about if we hear from someone who was there for the policy discussions. Here are some quotes by Colin Powell:</p>
<p>Driver and Fundingfather, you insist that there is no evidence that the Bush administration “lied” about the WMD. I have to disagree. Only the tinfoil hat brigade now claims that there were bona fide weapons of mass destruction of the nature described by Powell, Cheney, Fleisher, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al. The only question left is whether members of the adminstration knew the truth, and deliberately misled the American people, or whether they were actually just honestly wrong. </p>
<p>The fact of making statements which are proven to be false constitutes a “shred” or “scintilla” of evidence of lying in and of itself. In fact, in court, that evidence alone would be sufficient to support a legal judgment, absent evidence to the contrary. People usually don’t make repeated, emphatic statements about things they have a lot of information on which are dead wrong by accident. So it’s not an unreasonable inference to draw that when that happens they were actualy “lying.”</p>
<p>Of course, there is evidence to the contrary in this case - there’s a lot of reports that some parts of the intelligence community bought into various parts the WMD story - although others didn’t. And the Administration had access to both sides. With regard to the infamous “16 words”, for example - our own intelligence people wouldn’t support the claim, so it was phrased in a weasely manner laying it off on the Brits. By making the assertion that way Bush’s State of the Union address led the American people to believe that Iraq was in fact actively working on reconstituting a nuclear program at that time, while American intelligence sources did not support that claim.</p>
<p>Does that make the 16 words a “lie” in essence, if not in “the meaning of is” specificity? I guess that’s a matter of definition and perspective. But it’s at the very least a “shred” or “scintilla”, whether you like it or not. And as to whether Powell was caused to tell “lies” - well, what he said wasn’t true. He says he believed it was true. He says the people who told him the things he relied on believed it was true. “Bad intelligence” can be bad because of intent, incompetence, or just bad luck. Personally, I lean towards a combination of all three - bad luck to have less than crystal clear information, incompetence because the right answer was ascertainable, and was ascertained by some, and intent, because it’s always easier to err on the side that your boss favors than the other way. (Maybe that has a foot in the “incompetent” zone also.)</p>
<p>So - “lie” or just “wrong but sincere?” There’s evidence each way. More than a “shred” or “scintilla” each way, like it or not.</p>
<p>“it was his decision to decide whether he wanted to listen to that person or somebody else.”</p>
<p>So he was the decider? </p>
<p>No there are others besides the general, you know that. He’s just one of many. I’m not just talking about the war by the way. </p>
<p>No sorry, you look around at the different level staff and see about being on the “team” and what it meant. </p>
<p>Thanks for the history lesson on the Sherman, I thought it was known as the zippo … The history channel is one of my favorites too. But actually I think our tankers referred to it as Ronson, a fine American lighter.</p>
<p>kluge, based on your logic (repeated, emphatic statements which turn out to be wrong is evidence of lying), then you can include a lot more people in your liars brigade: Bill and Hillary Clinton, Albright, Gore, Kerry, Edwards (one of the few who actually claimed there to be an “imminent” threat), Kennedy, Gephart, Rockefeller (another person who claimed the threat was imminent), etc., etc. In fact, I’ll bet you that it would be hard to find anyone on Capital Hill that didn’t participate in the “lie”.</p>
<p>Since you have decided to define what constitutes a “lie”, allow me to define a weasel: one who repeatedly, emphatically makes a statement which, when found to be incorrect, turns on those who also made the same statement and accuses them of being liars.</p>
<p>The Daily Show??? Please don’t tell me that this is your source for “news”. I mean it would explain a lot and you certainly aren’t alone if it is. But really!</p>
<p>FF - I guess I should have expected something on that level, eh? I give you a reasoned discussion of what constitutes a “shred” or “scintilla” of evidence of lying (since you emphatically insisted there was none) and you give me, well, post #224. I didn’t “decide to define what constitutes a lie” or say that anyone did or didn’t tell one - go back and read what I actually wrote. </p>
<p>Do you ever take off the “partisan” hat? Do you ever wonder what it’s like to look at something dispassionately, without having to bash the “other side” and defend “our side?” I like Colin Powell. I find much that he’s said and done to be quite admirable. But his performance in support of the build up to the Iraq war was, as he has described it, “a blot” on his reputation. I dislike lots of Democrat politicians as well as Republican ones (I actually tend not to like politicians in general). And I think most politicians say a lot of things (directly or through surrogates) which are not “true” as I understand that term, and most of them, in my opinion, have a pretty good idea that what they’re communicating isn’t strictly speaking “true” in some circumstances. Whether that makes them “liars” is a question of degree, I suppose. But I think that making the blanket assertion that Powell (or Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Fleischer) “lied” or “didn’t lie” is a question of degree. You can conclude that they didn’t “lie” when they said things we now know to have been untrue, based on what you believe they “knew” and didn’t “know” at the time; others may conclude the opposite, based on the information that was available to them and their apparently studied avoidance of evidence which conflicted with the story they were pushing. </p>
<p>All I’m saying is that there is “evidence” that supports both viewpoints. But that won’t be good enough for you, will it?</p>
<p>Powell has an unfortunate record of “toying with the truth” that goes back to the first Gulf War, when he went on tv and “confirmed” that all 20 SCUD missile bases in Iraq had been destroyed, only to have folks on the ground go in and “discover” that the U.S. hadn’t even hit a single one of them. So the 2003 episode was not a “blot on his reputation”, but a confirmation of his previous one as a “toyer”.</p>
<p>kluge, OK, after re-reading your post, I’ll admit that you didn’t define what constitutes a lie and didn’t say that Bush actually lied. I will re-phrase my post to be: “based on your logic (repeated, emphatic statements which turn out to be wrong is evidence of lying), then there is evidence of a lot more people in a liars brigade: Bill and Hillary Clinton, Albright, Gore, Kerry, Edwards … {the rest of this paragraph goes as stands}”</p>
<p>And since you didn’t actually define a “lie” I won’t attribute that to you. But I still stand by my definition of a weasel. ;)</p>
<p>However, in re-reading your post I noticed that you said this:
</p>
<p>This is actually wrong … here are statements directly from the Senate Intelligence Committee report:</p>
<p><a href=“U”>quote</a> In September 2002, the DIA published an intelligence assessment (Defense Intelligence Assessment, Iraq s Reemerging Nuclear Program) which outlined Iraqs recent efforts to rebuild its nuclear program. The report focused on a variety of issues related to Iraqs nuclear efforts, including procurement efforts, nuclear facilities, consolidation of scientists and uranium acquisition. On the latter issue, the assessment said Iraq has been vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake. The report described the intelligence on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal and several other intelligence reports on Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The assessment said that DIA cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><a href=“U”>quote</a> In a written response to questions from Committee staff, the White House said that on September 11,2002,National Security Council (NSC) staff contacted the CIA to clear language for possible use in a statement for use by the President. The language cleared by the CIA said, Iraq has made several attempts to buy high strength aluminum tubes used in centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. And we also know this: within the past few years, Iraq has resumed efforts to obtain large quantities of a type of uranium oxide known as yellowcake, which is an essential ingredient of this process. The regime was caught trying to purchase 500 metric tons of this material. It takes about 10 tons to produce enough enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon. The text was identical to the text proposed by the White House except that the CIA had suggested adding up to before 500 metric tons. The President never used the
approved language publicly.
<a href=“U”>quote</a> Some time in September a member of the NSC staff discussed the Niger uranium issue with a CIA analyst. The CIA analyst told committee staff that during coordination of a speech (he was not sure which one) with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested that the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British flapping in the wind. In a written response to a question about this matter from the Committee, the NSC staff member said that the CIA analyst did not suggest that he remove text regarding Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The NSC staff member said the analyst suggested that Saddam’s meeting with his nuclear mujahedin was more compelling evidence of Iraqs effort to resurrect the Iraqi nuclear program than attempts to acquire yellowcake, but said the analyst never suggested that the yellowcake text be removed. He said he had no recollection of telling a CIA analyst that replacing the uranium reference would leave the British flapping in the wind and said such a statement would have been illogical since the President never presented in any one speech every detail of intelligence gathered on Iraq either by the U.S. or by the U.K.
[/quote]
<a href=“U”>quote</a> Regarding uranium from Africa, the language of the NIE said:
Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellowcake and low-enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA. Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.
0 A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure uranium (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.
0 Reports indicate Iraq has also sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.
[/quote]
And here is a key quote:
<a href=“U”>quote</a> At the NIE coordination meeting, the only analyst who voiced disagreement with the uranium section was an INR analyst. Several analysts from other agencies told Committee staff that they did not recall even discussing the uranium reporting at the meeting. All of the analysts said that the bulk of the time at the meeting was spent debating other issues such as the aluminum tubes, time lines for weapons designs, and procurement of magnets and other dual use items. CIA, DIA and DOE analysts all said that at the time the NIE was written, they agreed with the NIE assessment that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa. Some analysts said, in retrospect, the language should have been more qualified than it was, but they generally agreed with the text.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So to say as you did “American intelligence sources did not support that claim” is a tad disingenuous knowing that only one agency questioned one minor aspect of the overall assertion that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program - a conclusion that was unanimously agreed to by the entire American intelligence community.</p>
<p>And mini, what do you think Powell should have said regarding the Patriot missiles, “Yes, Saddam, we have no defense against your missiles so your efforts are not in vain; go ahead and fire more at us and we will be just sitting ducks. Oh, and by the way, the last one you fired was wide right - you may want to adjust your targeting algorithm”. Sheeesh, I’m sure glad that general mini is not in charge of our war effort.</p>
<p>Well, Driver, you’ve got a whole bunch of statements like this:
Well, there was a doubt. They didn’t “know for a fact”. They didn’t “know where they [were]” becuase they weren’t there. And those weren’t just assertions about the truth of the underlying assertion - they were assertions about the strength of the proof of the assertions. And there actually were doubts among the intelligence community about a lot of the things various administration spokespeople were asserting. </p>
<p>And to claim that you know something “for a fact” when it’s actually not true - well, short of blaming it on a hallucination that’s pretty hard to wiggle out of when considering the “L” word.</p>
<p>You will note that I tend to use a lot of quotes from such sources as the Senate Intelligence Agency and I don’t ever recall using any quote from Fox. But, even if I did, I would have more confidence of it being accurate than if it were from CBS (“fake but accurate”), CNN (“US military targeting journalists”), NBC (using explosives to blow up trucks to “prove” how they are prone to explosions).</p>
<p>kluge, just wanted to let you know that I understand what you are saying, and it makes perfect sense logically. I have given up contributing to this thread because it is obviously useless. However, I admire your courage to continue. Good luck!</p>
</p>